Installed Oracle Linux Rel. 6 on a stand-alone PC for testing. When the system boots it defaults to terminal mode automatically. What is required are graphical capabilities to load Oracle products (DB and OEM). Is this possible with this linux and how?

As of version 6, a graphical user interface for enterprise server is apparently considered a waste of resources.

A desktop can be installed, but you need to include the appropriate packages. If this is a new installation I suggest to reinstall the system. Or you could try to follow the instructions at http://www.linuxtopia.org/online_books/rhel6/rhel_6_installation/rhel_6_installation_sn-switching-to-gui-login.html

Why saving computer resources for the sake of usability when hardware is getting cheaper and more powerful every year. I think if Enterprise Linux continues this trend, human resources and administration specialists will become more essential, and training and service more expensive. Imagine a text based smartphone - I'm sure some people will love it, and some business will make some bucks on service calls, but over time people will just loose interest, and there is also competition around.

Interesting note about 6.1. If I recall the release notes for RHEL 6.0 correctly, samba and LVM configuration GUI, for instance, were removed without a replacement. The remove of the system-config-network utility was noted in the beta versions. I wonder if there is some strategic decision behind this that is not explained by technical system resources.

As long as there are users and a network, there will always be security issues. The biggest security problems are often caused by system administrators and systems that are complex to manage. SSH and computer access will only be as good as the user or administrator taking care of the passwords. I'm not sure what difference it makes, but Virus protection and security are always a cat and mouse game. Perhaps certain information just simply shouldn't be stored on computer systems.

Dude wrote:
Why saving computer resources for the sake of usability when hardware is getting cheaper and more powerful every year. I think if Enterprise Linux continues this trend, human resources and administration specialists will become more essential, and training and service more expensive. Imagine a text based smartphone - I'm sure some people will love it, and some business will make some bucks on service calls, but over time people will just loose interest, and there is also competition around.

Argument is not relevant - a server is neither an end-user platform or a consumer device.

As to the impact - a GUI can eat lots of precious server memory. Something seemingly benevolent as a screen saver can render an entire CPU (or core) useless as it consumes that many CPU horses.

A server sits in a data centre - not on a desktop. Most servers in a data centre do not even have screens connected (we usually have a single screen, keyboard next to a rack and plug this in manually into whatever blade server we need console access to - assuming that lights out management access via the management network is not working).

There are not any logical and sound reasons for running a GUI on a server console. And no, Linux/Unix is not Windows and unlike Windows does not need a GUI on the console.

I always set +/etc/inittab+ initlevel to 3 - and am known for leaving very rude comments in it for sysadmins that runs my database servers with initlevel 5 (I will remove the X respawn daemon from +/etc/inittab+ and run telinit to fix their fubar error - thus rendering initlevel 5 useless for booting any form of X11 on the console).

There are 2 fundamental sysadmin errors that tend to very quickly cheese me off - running my servers in initlevel 5 and configuring the network on the server without a FQDN.... And my reasons IMO are very very valid - and based on experience where I had to spend many hours troubleshooting all kind of weird problems caused by these two seemingly "innocent" config decisions.

Argument is not relevant - a server is neither an end-user platform or a consumer device.

At some point in history a computer was not even considered a consumer device. Sorry I don't understand why a graphical interface, which intends to make complex configurations easier to manage and more foolproof, should not be applied to "expert devices".

As for the desktop interface, I have no problem if someone decides that their servers run best without it, and that a text interface and a bare metal engine is the way a computer should run. It depends on your environment and desires, and it is easy enough for someone with such requirement and technical background to customize a Linux system accordingly. But I'm not a fan of social engineering and don't think it should be disabled by default because it will give newcomers a harder time than required.

At some point in history a computer was not even considered a consumer device. Sorry I don't understand why a graphical interface, which intends to make complex configurations easier to manage and more foolproof, should not be applied to "expert devices".

It does not make it easier. That is a fallacy - the type of argument one gets from a Windows admin that only knows a GUI and nothing else. There are numerous times when dealing with the command line is not only far more powerful, but also far more easier. There are so many different types of configurations, many not to be found in any GUI. There are configurations that are too complex for a GUI. Etc.

Linux is not Windows. Linux does not have an all-configuration-in-one-basket registry. So the GUI centric approach to sys admin on Linux is not only the wrong approach, but a dangerous one.

As for the desktop interface, I have no problem if someone decides that their servers run best without it, and that a text interface and a bare metal engine is the way a computer should run. It depends on your environment and desires, and it is easy enough for someone with such requirement and technical background to customize a Linux system accordingly. But I'm not a fan of social engineering and don't think it should be disabled by default because it will give newcomers a harder time than required.

So instead give newcomers a crutch called a GUI and hobble them for the rest of their lives, expecting a GUI to be the extend of what sys admin and configuration are on Linux?

To put this into an analogy. A Cessna single engine 152 pilot cannot simply expect to get into a twin turbo prop King Air and fly the plane. He cannot argue that the plane should be easy enough to fly for a pilot and that as he is a pilot he should be able to fly it. He first needs to learn how twins behave. What the envelope is. How the systems work. Etc.

Yes, he will need his basic piloting skills learned as a C152 pilot. But those skills alone do not suffice.

Similarly, newcomers to Linux sys admin should not expect to simply get into the driving seat and effectively and correctly install and configure it. There is a learning curve. Arguing that this learning curve needs to be mitigated by a GUI? That is like a C152 pilot arguing that he does not need to know the complexities of a twin as he can use the autopilot in his little Cessna and all he needs to fly the large twin is to use that plane's autopilot. It is nonsensical.

Would Windows be a better operating system if it was command line only?

I think that a command line or graphical interface has nothing to do with being an expert or not. The question which one is better depends on how well each is designed. To a certain extend it is also affected by personal imagination, perception and previous experiences.

I would question the reason for a system setup that requires a command line interface that cannot be achieved by a well designed GUI. When it boils down to CLI and GUI design, Linux and Unix, in general, are rather a state of mess than state of art.

I prefer to click and see available options because it is faster and more convenient than typing and having to remember or look-up commands. My experience with VMS and Apple may explain some of my opinion. The Unix command line is quite reckless e.g. http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/docs/vms_vs_unix.html.

Would Windows be a better operating system if it was command line only?

Absolutely! I was excited when WinNT came out because internally it looked very much like VMS (no surprise there). Then they saddled it with that sow's ear of the Windows GUI. All that lovely functionality and elegance hidden behind that granny-fied interface model.

James Martin wrote a very good book "Design Of Man/Computer Dialogs" http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=574884 where various kinds of interface models were described and their intended target audience. For example, casual users need a very different interface model than would be appropriate for an expert, even for accomplishing the same goal. Easy-to-learn does not equate with easy-to-use. The issue with WYSIWYG is that it is really WHSIAYG (What You See Is All You Get). Need to change another setup value? We've got an app for that! With the command line, you create disposable commands because the acquisition cost threshold is so low.

That being said, don't forget that X11 is built around a client/server model. You don't need a frame buffer, the rendering engine, font libraries and all the rest for a dedicated server. Nothing wrong with pushing all that to a graphics workstation.

So, each tool has its appropriate setting, but I want a SysAdmin who can get in, drill down, fix and disengage even if what is broken is the graphical login. To each cat, a fine rat. You say "emacs" and I say "vi", or something like that.

Well, other systems share internal systems design concepts too. I'm sure no one will guess that VMS and WinNT have anything in common if it was not mentioned in history books, not to mention the very different hardware and completely different use, look and features, DCL and cluster for example.

Unfortunately I do not have a copy of the book you mention, but sorry, it was written nearly 40 years ago perhaps in collaboration with IBM. I think it is not necessary to elaborate any further that Windows might not exist today, but certainly would not have the large acceptance, if it was command line only. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not against command line, or against someone who prefers command line.

Dude wrote:
Would Windows be a better operating system if it was command line only?

Yes. And that is why I wrote a proper command line shell interface (exposing some of the Win16/32 API) for WFW 3.11 and then the first version of Windows-NT.

It was originally written in old Turbo Pascal for Windows. Had bash like syntax and basic scripting support. Also supported a basic client-server model, using Network DDE as communication interface. The added advantage using this was that after running the shell once on a computer, it enabled the startup hooks required for the NetDDE daemon to start it automatically when a remote shell send a logon request. (meaning that I had a backdoor in any Windows PC and server on a network when I needed it ;-) )

Some of the APIs exposed dealt with unloading DLLs (needed to manually unload DLLs when an app crash - an important feature needed when developing DLLs). Enumerating memory blocks, and being able to dump their contents and even free them. CLI to the multi-media system. Into MAPI. Into RAS (Remote Access Services) API. Etc.

As I got involved with WFW and NT 3.0 o/s and network support, I extended this to cover more of the Win API. An API I've always considered as a pretty well designed one - but pretty much useless via GUIs as these do not expose the useful ones. And when they do - there is no means to script stuff. Like for example scripting the automated monitor of a X.25 connection (via the RAS API), retrying the connection when it goes down, and sending mail (using MAPI) when unable to get that line up again.

Was a beta tester (under NDA) on both the Chicago and Day-tona* projects. And Windows at its core is a damn fine o/s. But unfortunately, it stops there. Political and marketing policies and reasons dictates the layers above it. And that is the reason for the lack of a proper CLI on Windows.

I realize that a command line interface is essential for Unix and Windows and we can discuss the reasons why it is and why some operating systems are the way they are. But my criticism is about Red Hat apparently starting to abandon the administrator desktop interface. I think this is only going to limit the future clientele and Red Hat shot itself in the foot.